65 years since Hiroshima: The lives saved

[boredatwork]

My father and thousands of veterans and millions of Japanese lived because the bomb was dropped. The Japanese were not prepared to give up and would have made the allies pay in blood for every inch of the Home Islands taken. It was only faced with a weapon that could kill thousands without allied losses did they finally give up! I for one would very much like apologists to get over the fact that the bomb ended the war!

My Grand Father was on his way to Japan in a mindsweeper when the war ended.

Am I happy Japan surrendered? Absolutely.

Do I feel guilty that the bomb was dropped? No. It was a reasonable decision based on the facts of the time.

Do I take it as an article of blind faith that, in the absence of the bomb, only an invasion could have ended the war? No.



Your argument fails because the B-29 WERE ALREADY killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Japanese for trivial loses.



I'll try and dig up the relavent quotes by "apologists" such as McArthur, LeMay, Kanoe, and others if need be - in the meantime however here's the apologists opinion of the US Strategic Bombing Commision summary of the Pacific war:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Note that neither it or I are saying the choice to use the bomb was a poor one, merely WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, it probably wasn't a necessary one to end the war short of invasion.

[yellowtail3]

I for one would very much like apologists to get over the fact that the bomb ended the war!

Am I an apologist, if I think nuking Japan was unnecessary?
I'm probably giving you too much credit when I assume you know what an apologist is.

They didn't have a lot of stuff then, and we had to kill almost every one of them. After Peliliu and Okinawa the First Marines were pretty well combat ineffective, what with losses and combat fatigue. Why would Japan be any different?

Because it would be a lot of civilians and very poorly and hungry soldiers against a very well-equipped mechanized army and air force, that's why. I think the casualty predictions for Olympic were exaggerated. And I think Japan would have surrendered, sans bomb, before any invasion. Bgile pointed out the seriousness of the Russian entry - the Red Army slaughtered the Japanese forces, and their already dire position just got a lot worse.

I simply think that the nuke was not necessary - and at least one bright bulb thinks that constitutes being an apologist ????

[Karl Heidenreich]

boreatwork:

Note that neither it or I are saying the choice to use the bomb was a poor one, merely WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, it probably wasn't a necessary one to end the war short of invasion.

This is a very important comment here. I do understand your point but, again, those guys that made the decision didn't have the:

1. All the info we have now.
2. The time to evaluate all they have.
3. The luxury to screw up things because that luxury will risk the lives of hundred of thousands.

[yellowtail3]

3. The luxury to screw up things because that luxury will risk the lives of hundred of thousands.

Eh, not really... by the summer of 1945 Japanese forces weren't killing a lot of Americans. Of course they had lots of allied prisoners, but they weren't all that dangerous to us, certainly not 'hundreds of thousands' - unless we invaded. Which we didn't have to do.

For many years I accepted the idea that the bomb was good and proper. I've just changed my mind on that (along with a few other things over the years)

[Byron Angel]

I looked into this matter a few years ago and came away with some conclusions which I will share.

The notion that the United States, after spending three and a half years of hard fighting at an immense cost in blood and treasure just to reach the outlying Japanese home islands, was going to essentially stand down from offensive strategic operations and wait on an indeterminate open-ended timeframe for the Japanese leadership to assess their prospects, conclude among themselves that the war was lost, and accede to unconditional surrender is nonsensical. All the elaborate calculus offered up by various pundits and historical revisionists to justify the idea is founded upon the supposition that the Japanese nation and leadership would assess their situation from a purely Western cultural perspective. The idea that several thousand years of deeply ingrained Japanese culture and traditions might influence such a process is blithely ignored. This, in my opinion, is where the USSBS commentary fails as well.

In addition, it is my opinion that the monetary, economic, domestic public opinion, geo-political and military morale costs of leaving a gigantic military force idling away month after month would have been unsupportable from the American point of view. And no one to the best of my knowledge has bothered to address how such a unilateral Allied military stand-down might have been interpreted or misinterpreted by the Japanese, who had been banking on Allied war weariness to draw their fat out of the figurative fire.

As it was, the surrender of Japan was in the end the decision of a single man, Emperor Hirohito. No one else in Japan possessed the influence and respect to successfully press an agenda so alien to Japanese society. It took the destruction of two notable Japanese cities by atomic weapons of hitherto unimagined and unprecedented destructive power to convince him that surrender, however ignoble, was essential. Even then, he had to survive an attempted assassination plot and coup d'etat attempt by remaining Imperial Japanese Army fire-breathers before being able to actually implement it. I've always felt that the enormous importance of Hirohito's efforts in bringing an end to the war was one of the reasons why McArthur permitted Japan to retain its emperor.


Byron

[frontkampfer]

The notion that the United States, after spending three and a half years of hard fighting at an immense cost in blood and treasure just to reach the outlying Japanese home islands, was going to essentially stand down from offensive strategic operations and wait on an indeterminate open-ended timeframe for the Japanese leadership to assess their prospects, conclude among themselves that the war was lost, and accede to unconditional surrender is nonsensical. All the elaborate calculus offered up by various pundits and historical revisionists to justify the idea is founded upon the supposition that the Japanese nation and leadership would assess their situation from a purely Western cultural perspective. The idea that several thousand years of deeply ingrained Japanese culture and traditions might influence such a process is blithely ignored. This, in my opinion, is where the USSBS commentary fails as well.

In addition, it is my opinion that the monetary, economic, domestic public opinion, geo-political and military morale costs of leaving a gigantic military force idling away month after month would have been unsupportable from the American point of view. And no one to the best of my knowledge has bothered to address how such a unilateral Allied military stand-down might have been interpreted or misinterpreted by the Japanese, who had been banking on Allied war weariness to draw their fat out of the figurative fire.

As it was, the surrender of Japan was in the end the decision of a single man, Emperor Hirohito. No one else in Japan possessed the influence and respect to successfully press an agenda so alien to Japanese society. It took the destruction of two notable Japanese cities by atomic weapons of hitherto unimagined and unprecedented destructive power to convince him that surrender, however ignoble, was essential. Even then, he had to survive an attempted assassination plot and coup d'etat attempt by remaining Imperial Japanese Army fire-breathers before being able to actually implement it. I've always felt that the enormous importance of Hirohito's efforts in bringing an end to the war was one of the reasons why McArthur permitted Japan to retain its emperor.

Well said!

If I might add, the Japanese attacked the US in the belief that the US did not have the will to fight. They modified that belief by thinking that if Japan made the cost to defeat them so high we would negotiate a favorable peace. After suffering the looses after Pearl Harbor, Guam, Wake & the PI, to march all the way across the Pacific and paying the butchers bill that went with it we were expected to stop at their shore and wait form them to realize they were beat is ludicrous! I don't care what MacArthur though, said or believed. He screwed up on 12/8/41 so he was fallible like anyone else.

We would not have waited for Germany to surrender once the allies arrived at its borders. So why are the apologists always cutting the Japanese a break? The atrocities committed by them are well know, yet there are those that overlook that when it comes to their final defeat. Why? I can only think of two reasons why.

First and foremost is the bomb itself. We had it, we used it, the war ended!
Second, the US can do no Right!


The Japanese had a different culture. It was not western. To think they would look at their situation in 1945 and think they could be rational is misguided. They gambled on inflicting high casualties to win a favorable peace. We upped the ante and they lost the final hand!

[Karl Heidenreich]

yellowtail3:

Eh, not really... by the summer of 1945 Japanese forces weren't killing a lot of Americans. Of course they had lots of allied prisoners, but they weren't all that dangerous to us, certainly not 'hundreds of thousands' - unless we invaded. Which we didn't have to do.

The killing will start in the moment the invasion starts, that's obvious. The nazis would have not been killing any American if Ike didn't landed in Normandy. That's not a very clever argument, by the way.

I agree with Byron and frontkampfer, waiting for a blockade in order to made a historical warrior society to accept something it could not endure by itself is, at the best, wishfull thinking. On the other hand blockades has never, ever, worked: Napoleon's one on England didn't work and if not by the US intervention in WWI the British blockade of Germany in WWI could have very well ended in Willy having the tea at Versailles.

In order to dispell those myths of Japan surrendering, on it's own peace loving free will:

The Potsdam ultimatum

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communique. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu lit. "kill by silence").[19] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position.[20] On July 31, he made clear to his advisor Kōichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[21]
In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to cause Japan to surrender.[22]

19.^ Frank, Richard B.. Downfall. pp. 233–234. The meaning of the word mokusatsu can fall anywhere in the range of "ignore" to "treat with contempt".
20.^ Bix, Herbert (1996). "Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation". in Michael J. Hogan, ed.. Hiroshima in History and Memory. Cambridge University Press. p. 290. ISBN 0-521-56682-7.
21.^ Kido Koichi nikki, Tokyo, Daigaku Shuppankai, 1966, p.1120-1121

As with my arguments in battleships and military history I try to come with all available quotes and sources.

[yellowtail3]

So why are the apologists always cutting the Japanese a break? The atrocities committed by them are well know, yet there are those that overlook that when it comes to their final defeat.

You're gonna have to spell out what you mean by apologist. On the issue of overlooking atrocities... not sure what you mean. Perhaps that burning to death the citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (and others firebombed) was a sort of... payback? That those children there deserved to be burned to death? But I'd rather you explain yourself, than me infer meaning. Go ahead.

...Why? I can only think of two reasons why...

well then, you're not near as smart as you think you are

The Japanese had a different culture. It was not western.

Thanks for that explanation!

That's not a very clever argument, by the way.

I'm not attempting clever arguments, Karl - if I were, I'd be constructing straw-men and referring to battleships as 'bathtubs'

In order to dispell those myths of Japan surrendering, on it's own peace loving free will:

There's a far example of a semi-clever straw man - now you just have to find someone to knock him down. I won't. Who else in here as referred to WW2 Japan as 'peace loving'?

the thread wanders. Myself - I don't view Hiroshima and Nagasaki as lives saved... though I know the arguments well and dont' think them unreasonable, having made them myself for years. Just hold a diff conclusion now. I also think the bombing of Dresden was shameful.

[boredatwork]

This isn't a debate about whether it was "right or wrong" to use the bomb.

It's NOT a debate into the reasonability of the US Decision to use the bomb based on what they knew at the time.

It's a debate of the validity of the original post in this thread that, with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that in the absence of the bomb ONLY an invasion could have forced the Japanese to surrender.

As such statements like "the US standing down" or "not waiting on Germany's borders" are completely off point. Who suggested anything of the sort?? The premise of my argument is there was a significant chance between August and the November 1st invasion date that the continued effects of the firebombing and economic blockade, coupled with the USSRs entry into war and crushing defeat of the Manchurian armies would have moved Hirohito to overule the hardliners anyways and accept unconditional surrender.



However I will concede this debate because regardless of what I post I'm unlikely to bring you round to my moderate POV and I'm sure we all have better things to do with our time.

[Karl Heidenreich]

boreatwork:

It's a debate of the validity of the original post in this thread that, with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that in the absence of the bomb ONLY an invasion could have forced the Japanese to surrender.

Mike,

With the benefit of hindsight and with the absence of the bomb I see no other choice than invasion. As Byron Angel pointed out the Japanese Goverment (and the Imperial Institution) would have not surrendered upon a potracted blockade, they would have continued their resistance and, using Machiavelli maxim, that would have only benefit them.

Regards,

Karl

[frontkampfer]

You're gonna have to spell out what you mean by apologist. On the issue of overlooking atrocities... not sure what you mean. Perhaps that burning to death the citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (and others firebombed) was a sort of... payback? That those children there deserved to be burned to death? But I'd rather you explain yourself, than me infer meaning. Go ahead.

While you sympathize for Japanese children, I'm sure you likewise sympathize for murdered Chinese children in Nanjing, Filipino children in Manila and elsewhere. War is a stinking, nasty business and the sooner it ends the better. The only thing better would be to not to start a war in the first place! Japan sewed the storm and reaped the whirlwind. The bomb ended the war! That fact remains no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You can have the last word. I've had mine!

[RF]

the fact that the bomb ended the war!

Is exactly right. And the demonstration of its effects helped to keep the Cold War cold.

[RF]

This isn't a debate about whether it was "right or wrong" to use the bomb.

It's a debate of the validity of the original post in this thread that, with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that in the absence of the bomb ONLY an invasion could have forced the Japanese to surrender.

As such statements like "the US standing down" or "not waiting on Germany's borders" are completely off point. Who suggested anything of the sort?? The premise of my argument is there was a significant chance between August and the November 1st invasion date that the continued effects of the firebombing and economic blockade, coupled with the USSRs entry into war and crushing defeat of the Manchurian armies would have moved Hirohito to overule the hardliners anyways and accept unconditional surrender.

However I will concede this debate because regardless of what I post I'm unlikely to bring you round to my moderate POV and I'm sure we all have better things to do with our time.

The POV may be ''moderate'' but it is inaccurate. There is no indication that blockade and firebombing would have produced surrender, any more than it did from the nazies.

Use of phrases like ''moderate'' is not a good idea. Remember what Barry Goldwater said in 1964?

[yellowtail3]

Use of phrases like ''moderate'' is not a good idea. Remember what Barry Goldwater said in 1964?

Oh, moderate is a fine word - not a dirty one (some say it is).

At least it has meaning in the context of this thread, unlike 'apologist'

[lwd]

boreatwork:

It's a debate of the validity of the original post in this thread that, with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that in the absence of the bomb ONLY an invasion could have forced the Japanese to surrender.

With the benefit of hindsight and with the absence of the bomb I see no other choice than invasion. ...

I'm actually pretty sure that they would indeed have surrendered before an invasion occured. However I susptect that is mostly because US intel comunity was becoming convinced that the Japanese had figured out where we were going to land and possbily getting an idea of the magnitude of what was waiting. There's at least a decent chance the planned invasion would be postponed. If it was there wouldn't be suitable weather until spring of 46. The Japanese were already suffering the effects of malnutrition. Several more months of blockade and bombing would have been almost sure to have raised famine and its follower disease to exponentially higher levels. I don't see even the Japanese accepting that. On the otherhand I'm not at all sure the USBS 1 Jan date is correct either as the absolute cut off.
If the invasion had gone as planned the actual losses may have been underestimated as the environment was much more condusive to kamikaze attacks and this time there would be both surface and submarine attacks of this nature. Furthermore they had decided to target the transports rather than war vessels.
In either case it is clear that the bomb saved both Japanese and allied lives.